The collection provides a detailed account of the two principal boundary disputes between Maine and New Hampshire in the twentieth-century: the so-called “Lobster War” of the 1970s and the location and jurisdiction of Seavey’s Island and the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in the 1990s. Its contents date from 1969 to 2004. The records include correspondence, newspaper clippings, pamphlets, maps and historical papers related to the establishment of the border.

A paper copy of the finding aid may be found in Box 1 Folder 1.

Biographical Note:

Harrison Workman was born in Portsmouth NH on August 13, 1919 and died in the city in 2007, aged 87. He worked first as a boat builder, then as a joiner at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard from 1945 until 1972, and later as a lobsterman. He was the first Portsmouth resident drafted in World War II. In 1974, he was appointed to the Advisory Committee on Shore Fisheries (part of the N.H. Fish and Game Commission). He also served as a representative of the New Hampshire Commercial Fisherman’s Association that worked with the court-appointed master in 1974 to resolve the border issue. In 1981, Gov. Hugh Gallen appointed him to the Interstate Commission on the Lateral Marine Boundary Between New Hampshire and Maine. In 2001, he was a member of the N.H. delegation that accompanied state Attorney General Philip T. McLaughlin to the U.S. Supreme Court to present oral arguments.

A tireless researcher and activist on the New Hampshire-Maine border dispute issue from 1970 until the U.S. Supreme Court’s second decision in 2001, Workman traveled to London in 1974 to research and copy early boundary documents. In fact, he researched the matter longer than anyone else and collected the most accurate information. Gov. Jeanne Shaheen and Assistant Attorney General Leslie Ludtke relied on documents Workman provided when they decided to pursue the boundary issue in the late 1990s. “My interest,” Workman is quoted as saying in a 2001 Foster’s Sunday Citizen article, “wasn’t in whether the shipyard was in Maine or New Hampshire because of taxes. [For me] it was a matter of historical accuracy, what was right.” One headline referred to him as “‘Don Quixote’ in a boat.”

Historical Note:

Background:

On April 9, 1740, King George II signed a decree to settle an argument between the provinces of New Hampshire and that part of Massachusetts Bay Colony that became Maine over the boundary between them. While the decree defined the land boundary well, it was ambiguous about where on the water it was to be. However, a clear-cut marine boundary was unnecessary because residents of New Hampshire and the “district” of Maine made use of the oceans without either of their provincial governments imposing regulations on their activities.

This situation continued for a long time after Maine and New Hampshire became states. The only time before the 1960s that the offshore boundary was an issue was in 1873 after the Smuttynose Murders on the Isles of Shoals, when it was unclear to authorities under whose jurisdiction the accused Louis Wagner should be tried. In 1874, each state appointed a commissioner to survey not only the land boundary, but this time part of the offshore boundary as well. The commissioners agreed that Smuttynose was in Maine and set the border midway between Cedar and Star Islands. Unfortunately, they did not specify the exact line from the mouth of Portsmouth Harbor to Gosport Harbor between Star and Cedar, although at the time,again, there was no political need for it to be clarified.

A convention among area fishermen, going back probably as far as the 1820s, fixed the boundary line between the two harbors by lining up the lighthouse on Fort Point, a nub of land in Newcastle, with that on Whaleback Reef at the mouth of the harbor and extending the line out to the Shoals. This technique was called “lights-on-range.” It was easy to understand and to apply, but the difficulty with it was that the line it established required fishermen from Kittery Point to cross New Hampshire waters to reach their home port unless they wanted to risk wrecking their boats in treacherous waters on the Maine side of the line.

Despite this, the boundary question only really became a political problem in the 1960s when the two states started to regulate commercial fishing in earnest. Maine regulations were more restrictive than New Hampshire’s as regards the size of lobster it was legal to take (prohibiting the taking of lobsters less than 3 3/16″, as opposed to New Hampshire’s 3 1/8″) and lobstering in Maine waters was limited to Maine residents. New Hampshire fishermen frequently complained to the N.H. Fish and Game Commission about the situation. Maine authorities did not recognize the “lights-on-range” principle, preferring the boundary line drawn on a U.S. Geodetic Survey first published in 1920, which curved gradually to the east out to Gosport Harbor and gave Maine many more acres of water. Understandably, New Hampshire fishermen were upset over this. In fact, there was no legal basis for either the “lights-on-range” or the USGS lines.

Fish and game authorities in both states persuaded their respective legislatures to establish a special boundary commission to fix the line. It was informally agreed that in the meantime, until the joint boundary commission arrived at a conclusion, the USGS border would be recognized for enforcement purposes. Had the commission agreed on a boundary acceptable to both legislatures, the result could have been submitted to the U.S. Congress as an interstate compact and gained approval. But before this could be achieved, events took over and ended the gentlemen’s agreement.

The “Lobster War” (1970-1989):

In January 1973, Edward Heaphy, a New Hampshire lobsterman, was arrested by Maine authorities for fishing four-tenths of a mile inside Maine waters. Heaphy protested that he was inside New Hampshire waters if the “lights-on-range” line was followed, but he lost his case and was fined by Kittery District Court. He then contacted Governor Meldrim Thomson, an irascible and hyperbolic personality, who announced he would abrogate the gentlemen’s agreement and send Attorney General Warren Rudman to defend Heaphy at the trial de novo in York County Superior Court. Nonetheless, Heaphy lost the case.

In May 1973, Edward Capone, another New Hampshire lobsterman, was picked up by Maine wardens patrolling the disputed area. Gov. Thomson promptly retaliated with a promise to send a team of N.H. authorities to enforce the “lights-on-range” boundary. Maine sought a restraining order from the U.S. District Court to block Thomson’s threat. The judges for N.H. and Maine determined that only the U.S. Supreme Court had jurisdiction to decide the issue and got an agreement from both states to halt enforcement activities in the disputed area while the case went to Washington.

In the meantime, Thomson and the N.H. legislature flexed their muscles, albeit symbolically. In his 1973 inaugural speech, Thomson told the legislature that he would encourage a bill asserting the sovereignty of the state “to the seabed and waters 200 miles off our shores.” This was said with an eye to the potential oil deposits off the coast on Georges Bank. With the impending oil crisis and Aristotle Onassis’s bid (through his company, Olympic Oil) to build an oil refinery on Great Bay, access to this oil was a mouth-watering possibility. As it turned out, a 1975 Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Maine ruled that East Coast state governments’ jurisdiction was confined to the traditional three-mile limit of U.S. territorial waters. In the end, the bill filed in response to the governor’s inaugural address was watered down to claim only the “lights on range” boundary and an extension of the line drawn between Cedar and Star Islands. Despite the legislation being little more than a symbolic gesture, Gov. Thomson signed it into law on June 5, 1973.

Two days later, New Hampshire filed a complaint with the U.S. Supreme Court in which it asked the Court to endorse the “lights-on-range” boundary. Maine responded to the suit by claiming an L-shaped boundary formed by the intersection of a line splitting Portsmouth harbor’s navigable waters with another line that started at the west end of the channel between Star and Cedar Islands. In subsequent litigation, this claim was pressed no further.

The Supreme Court responded to New Hampshire’s suit by appointing retired Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark to study briefs, documents, histories and old maps and consider evidence from the two states and then recommend what the court should decide. Gov. Thomson appointed attorney Richard Upton to represent the state before the Court. Upton conducted about forty interviews with both Maine and New Hampshire fishermen and concluded that what they wanted was a straight line across the water. When he met with Clark in Boston, this is what he proposed. Maine’s representative told Upton that “if Maine could have a reasonable deal as to where the line came out of Portsmouth Harbor, Maine might agree to a straight line.” What resulted was a compromise agreement to be submitted to the court as a “consent decree.” The compromise agreement ceded most of the disputed fishing waters to Maine, about 600 acres of disputed lobstering bottom that was being fished by both states fishermen during the decision period, and 2500 acres of fishing waters in all.

New Hampshire’s Governor and Executive Council approved the consent decree on June 26, 1974 and Maine similarly did so on July 10. The consent decree later became known as the Thomson-Curtis Compact (perhaps after Special Master Clark dissociated himself from it). The New Hampshire Commercial Fisherman’s Association protested the boundary established by the proposed decree, despite the earlier suggestion of some fishermen that a straight line across the water was what they most wanted. Along with a group of New Hampshire legislators, it asked the Supreme Court for permission to intervene in the case. Eventually, the legislators dropped out, but the fishermen, as the New Hampshire Commercial Fisherman’s Association, were allowed by the Court to file a brief as amicus curiae (“friend of the court”).

The fishermen also lobbied the New Hampshire Legislature, successfully, to oppose the consent decree. The House and Senate issued a concurrent resolution (see Box 1 f.6), enacted in March 1975, that endorsed the “lights-on-range” boundary line. The resolution was opposed by Gov. Thomson and Attorney-General Warren Rudman, but it did influence the Special Master, who recommended in his report, published on October 15, 1975, that the Supreme Court reject the consent decree. Instead, he came up with an alternative boundary that was somewhat more favorable to New Hampshire. In turn, the fisherman and the state proposed another line yet more favorable to them. Maine’s lawyers pressed the Court to accept the consent decree, which is what the Court did, in June of 1976 in a 6-3 split decision. [For a clearly argued description of the legal issues at stake in the decision, such as the “thalweg principle” (thalweg means “the middle of the main channel of navigation”) vs. “the geographic middle” applied to the middle of the river phrase in the original 1740 decree, consult John Graham’s “N.H. vs. Maine: It Should Not Have Happened!” p.13 “Legal Aspects of the Case” located in Box 1 f.1].

A “Second Lobster War” briefly broke out again in 1979 when 57 lobster traps belonging to NH fishermen were seized by Maine authorities.

The Piscataqua River Border Dispute (1969-2004):

The second dispute, known as the Piscataqua River border dispute, was sparked by Maine’s policy of requiring shipyard workers who lived in New Hampshire to pay Maine state income tax on their earnings from the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard on Seavey’s Island in the Piscataqua River. It had its origins in 1969 when Governor Walter Peterson requested an advisory opinion from N.H. Attorney-General Pappagianis on the legality of this taxation. Pappagianis initially declined to render an opinion, saying there was “no public interest” for the state in the case, only a private one, and therefore it was beyond the purview of the A-G’s office. Repeatedly pressed by the Governor, he eventually opined that Seavey’s Island was in Maine (see Box 2 Folder 4) and the issue went no further.

Then, in 1981, N.H. Senator Gordon Humphrey drafted a bill (S. 721) “to prohibit the imposition of any tax by a state on the income derived by any individual from services performed at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard if such individual is not a resident…of the State in which said shipyard is located.” The bill had four readings, but no action seems to have been taken. In 1990, U.S. Rep. Bob Smith followed up on a request by Dover resident and shipyard worker Victor Bourre for his office to conduct research on the subject, which eventually led to the submission of a Concurrent Resolution (H. Con. Res. 337). The dispute gained momentum throughout the 1990s, gradually taking on the mantle of a crusade for some. At issue was the location and jurisdiction of Seavey’s Island.

In 2000, New Hampshire filed suit over the issue with the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming that new historic evidence had come to light proving that the border between New Hampshire and Maine should be drawn along the north bank of the Piscataqua, thereby making Seavey’s Island part of New Hampshire. The Court decided the case in May 2001 in favor of Maine, though not on the merits of the case. Instead, the doctrine of judicial estoppel was invoked. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote in the 8-0 decision (Justice Souter recused himself), “Where a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position, he may not thereafter, simply because his interest have changed, assume a contrary position, especially if it be to the prejudice of the party who has acquiesced in the position formerly taken by him…”

“Twenty-four years ago, in a lobster fishing dispute between the two states, this (Supreme) Court (fixed) the Maine-New Hampshire boundary in the coastal waters from Portsmouth Harbor 5 miles seaward to Gosport Harbor in the Isle of Shoals,” Ginsburg said. “The location of that boundary required a determination of where in Portsmouth Harbor the boundary should end. That, in turn required a determination of where the boundary along the Piscataqua River crosses the closing line of Portsmouth Harbor… New Hampshire’s claim that the Piscataqua River boundary runs along the Maine shore is clearly inconsistent with its interpretation of the words ‘middle of the river’ during the 1970s litigation.”

New Hampshire appealed the dismissal and requested the Court reconsider, but the motion was denied.

A reconstituted New Hampshire Boundary Commission, created in 2001 in response to a bill submitted by state rep. Laura Pantelakos of Portsmouth, conducted research on the subject and sought to reopen the dispute in 2004, intending to file a resolution with both houses of the state legislature. Pantelakos is quoted as saying, “all islands in the Piscataqua River are in New Hampshire…We should argue our point until we get it [Seavey’s Island].” This may seem a surprising development after the Supreme Court’s ruling a couple of years earlier, but the decision was apparently interpreted by some in New Hampshire, at least, as a refusal to decide the central issue of where Seavey’s Island was located, rather than a definitive ruling one way or the other. Historian Ken Thompson, author of ”Deceive to Win: the Maine-New Hampshire Boundary Controversy,” said it was a “non-issue” and that the commission set out with the goal of finding the shipyard in New Hampshire and ignored any information from the other side. (https://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/topic/6890-menh-border-battle/)

Folder 2 Papers related to the establishment of an interstate boundary commission to settle the marine boundary between New Hampshire and Maine. Includes the 1971 act; HB 714 of 1973; HB 52 of 1981; the State of Maine House of Representatives act of 1984; two draft versions of an Act to Establish a New Hampshire-Maine Boundary Commission, 1985; SB 6 to establish a New Hampshire-Maine Marine Boundary Commission, and transcript of discussion over SB 6 as it appears in Senate Journal, 13 February, 1986. Harrison Workman was a member of the commission from Nov. 1981. Inclusive dates: 1970-1986.

Folders 3-4 Papers concerning the arraignments of William Marconi, Vincent Marconi and Peter Yuha for dumping lobsters off Concord Point in Rye, July 11, 1970. Includes official complaint form (viz. arrest); various transcript pages from case; court opinion; affidavit and Motion for Continuance and Motion To Stay Proceedings in case of William Marconi and Vincent Marconi; exchange of letters between Fisher, Parsons, Moran & Temple, Attorneys- at-Law, and Thomas Rath, Asst. Attorney General re Marconi case; letter from George S. Pappagianis, Clerk, N.H. Supreme Court re Marconi case nol prossed (i.e., dismissed); letter from David Souter, N.H. Attorney General to Bernard Corson, Director, Fish and Game Dept. regarding the decision of nolle prosequis in the Marconi case. 1977. Inclusive dates: 1970-1977.

Folder 5 Submissions to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of State of New Hampshire v. State of Maine re lateral marine boundary between the states, 1972-1973.

Folder 6 Papers related to the ongoing lateral marine boundary case in the U.S. Supreme Court. Includes the Thomson-Curtis Compact; New Hampshire Commercial Fisherman’s Association paper outlining its differences with the Thomson-Curtis Compact; its press release in reply to Gov. Meldrim Thomson; the statement in response by Attorney General Warren Rudman, Deputy Attorney General David Souter and Special Counsel Richard F. Upton; House Concurrent Resolution 4, and the Attorney General’s office opposition to HCR 4. Dates: 1974-1975.

Folder 7 Newspaper clippings, 1973-1975, including some about the arrest of Edward Heaphy.

Folder 8 Papers concerning the arrest of Raymond Burge of Portsmouth for having short lobsters in his catch, April 27, 1974. Includes arrest forms and an exchange of letters between the Fish and Game Commission and others (including Judge John W. King) regarding the period of license revocation. Inclusive dates: April 1974-March 5, 1975.

Folder 9 Special Master Thomas C. Clark’s Report, Oct. 8, 1975.

Folder 10 Further papers concerning the U.S. Supreme Court case, 1975-1976. Includes exceptions to the Special Master’s Report, and transcript of the arguments made before the court on April 19, 1976. Dates: 1975-1977.

Folder 11 Post-Supreme Court decision papers, including letters from Harrison Workman to Sen. John Durkin, and to the U.S. Dept. of Justice, and letters between A-G David Souter and Sen. Durkin, 1976.

Folder 12 HB 1136 and its drafts declaring the consent decree null and void; Opinion of the Justices of the N.H. Supreme Court, 1977.

Folder 17 Papers, 1980, including: Letter to Workman from Asst. Attorney-General E. Tupper Kinder re discussion about lateral marine boundary as fixed in 1977 detailing the state’s position on Workman’ additional historical information; Letter from Workman to Gov. Hugh Gallen re the makeup of the Portsmouth Fish Pier Committee; NOAA’s letter to Tupper Kinder informing him that the marine boundary between the two states will be added to four Ocean Survey charts; Other correspondence.

Folder 18 Newspaper clippings, 1980.

Folder 19 Papers concerning the arraignments of Michael Welch, lobsterman of New Hampshire who was apprehended for having caught oversized lobsters in Maine waters. 57 lobster traps seized. Dates: 1981.

Folder 20 Correspondence, 1981, including: Letter from Earle Sanders, chair of the Advisory Committee on Shore Fisheries to Sen. Warren Rudman and Rep. Norm D’Amours re HB 52 in the NH legislature to negotiate for a “straight, visible, markable, enforceable marine boundary line” and subsequent response from NOAA; Letter from Gov. Hugh Gallen reappointing Workman a member of the Advisory Committee on Shore Fisheries and follow-up letter conforming such appointment; Letter from Gov. Hugh Gallen nominating Workman as a member of the Interstate Commission on the Lateral Boundary Between New Hampshire and Maine; Other correspondence.

Folder 21 Newspaper clippings, 1981.

BOX 2

Folder 1 Correspondence, 1982-1984, including:

Lawrence P. Greenlaw, Jr., Special Assistant, State of Maine Executive Dept. to Raimond Bowles, c/o Sanders Lobster Co. re Maine’s position on the possible re-negotiation of the Maine-New Hampshire seaward boundary; George Dana Bisbee, Attny., Environmental Protection Division, Attorney-General’s office, State of New Hampshire to Leah S. Crothers, Asst. A-G, Commonwealth of Massachusetts in re her prior letter pointing out a misrepresentation of the seaward boundary with Massachusetts in the 1973 amendment to NH RSA 1:15. II (Supp. 1981). He agrees with her; Harrison Workman to Alice Chamberlin, Special Assistant for Environmental Policy, Office of the Governor, enclosing names, addresses and phone numbers of New Hampshire Marine Boundary Commissioners; Alice Chamberlin, Office of the Governor to Commissioner Spencer Apollonio, State of Maine Dept. of Marine Resources re position of New Hampshire Marine Boundary Commissioners regarding the lateral marine boundary;

Further letters on the subject between Norm D’Amours, U.S. Rep. for NH and Harrison Workman; between Stephen E. Merrill, A-G of New Hampshire and James P. Weldon, North Hampton, N.H.; Alice Chamberlin and NH Marine Boundary Commissioners; Harrison Workman to Gov. Hugh Gallen; letters between Stephen Tober, attorney for Harrison Workman, and the A-G’s office re the expiration date of the Interstate Commission on the Lateral Marine Boundary; Workman to Portsmouth Legislative Delegation re House Bill 354 requiring an increase in the legal size of lobsters; letters between Workman and Curtis Crow, Geodetic advisor re destruction of Maine-New Hampshire historic granite marker located on Cedar Island, and several other letters.

Folders 4-5 Papers related to the 1969 request by Governor Walter Peterson and Council for an advisory opinion on the legality of the state of Maine taxing New Hampshire residents working at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard on Seavey Island. The request was first made of Attorney-General George S. Pappagianis, who declined to render an opinion on the grounds that there was “no state or public interest in the controversy.” The request was then submitted to the New Hampshire Supreme Court along with a memorandum from the A-G disassociating his office from the submitted resolutions. Included is the opinion of the justices. Inclusive dates: Nov 1968-Dec 1969.

Folder 6 Transcript of Sen. Gordon Humphrey’s introduction of a bill (S. 721) to “prohibit the imposition of any tax by a State on the income derived by any individual from services performed at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard,” Congressional Record, March 13, 1981.

Folder 7 Papers related to U.S. Rep. Bob Smith’s concurrent resolution introduced in the House of Representatives, including a chronology of facts relative to the location of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, etc., May-June 1990.

Folder 13 Papers, 1992-1993. Include Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Employees’ Meeting, a copy of the text of the class action petition filed on behalf of over 160 shipyard workers in Augusta, ME, and the resolution made by the New Hampshire Citizens Concerned for the Public Trust (HJR 1, Inc.).

Folder 14 Correspondence, 1993-1995: Letter from State of Maine Bureau of Taxation denying Workman an income tax refund for 1989, 1990 and 1991 and Workman’s request to be a named a petitioner in the legal suit to be filed as a class action; Memoranda for SB 597 – An Act to Prohibit the Enforcement of Judgments for Failure to Pay Income Tax with Respect to Income Earned at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and SB 754 – An Act To Resolve New Hampshire/Maine Border Dispute; Four letters and one memorandum from Alan Cleveland, Sheehan, Phinney, Bass + Green; Workman letter to Attorney-General Janet Reno.

Folder 19 Correspondence, 1998. Includes: Workman to Sen. Gregg; Dept. of the Navy to Sen. Gregg; Workman to Gov. Shaheen; Alan Cleveland and Edward A. Haffer to Shipyard Workers relaying decision to deny class action suit by State of Maine and their belief that NH A-G will take the boundary dispute to the U.S. Supreme Court; Workman to Portsmouth Herald Sunday edition; NH Gov.’s Citizen Affairs Office to Workman; Workman to David Solomon, Exec. Editor of the Portsmouth Herald; Dept. of the Navy to Norman Canwell.

Folder 20 Newspaper clippings, 1998.

BOX 3

Folder 1 Papers, 1999-2001.

Include press releases from Sen. Bob Smith, one applauding the decision of A-G Philip McLaughlin to file the NH-Maine border dispute affecting Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and Portsmouth Harbor before the U.S. Supreme Court (April 23, 1999) and the other, applauding Associate. A-G Leslie Ludtke for her argument before the Court (April 16, 2001); press release, dated June 4, 2001, from Victor Bourre; letters to the editor from Harrison Workman and Norman Cantwell, and materials released under the Freedom of Information Act sent to Cantwell re ownership of Seavey Island.

Folder 2 Correspondence, 1999: Workman to Portsmouth Herald; Workman to Governor’s Council and state legislators; N.H. A-G’s office to Norman Canwell with enclosed Annual Report to the Governor and Legislature; Two letters “To The Editor” from Norman Canwell; Workman to Sen. Joe Biden

Folder 3 Newspaper clippings, 1999.

Folder 4 Submissions to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of State of New Hampshire v. State of Maine re 2000-2001.

Folder 5 Submissions to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of State of New Hampshire v. State of Maine re 2000-2001.

Folder 6 Submission to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of State of New Hampshire v. State of Maine re, 2001.

Ten overlay maps of Georges Bank and Nantucket Shoals, n.d., with no information about who produced them Including “Areas of Interest to the Petroleum Industries; “Tracts Selected For Study By the Department of the Interior, Jan. 1976”; “All Flounders”; “Other Groundfish”; “Molluscs”; “Crustaceans”; “Pelagic Fish and Squid”; “All Species”; “Principal Domestic Trawling Grounds,” and “Principal Domestic Scallop, Longline and Pot Grounds.”

“Await Murder Scene Survey” – re John Field, Jr.’s murder of Stanley Wakem on the seiner Njorth on the Isles of Shoals and whose jurisdiction it would come under. The Portsmouth Herald, July 8, 1940.

Framed reproduction of map of Portsmouth Harbor.

VIII. Annotated Maps (all located in map cases)

1. Portsmouth Harbor. Geodetic chart 329. July 1954.

Shows ship’s channel for entering Portsmouth Harbor copied from a U.S. coast survey chart of the harbor done in 1866. The original chart is in the Portsmouth Public Library and has an image in the bottom right-hand corner of the entrance to the harbor showing Portsmouth Lighthouse and Whaleback Lighthouse and giving the bearing and position of where the picture was taken from.

Shows the course taken by M/V Viking Queen from its dock in Portsmouth to the Star Island dock on the Isles of Shoals as observed from the pilot house and subsequently marked by Harrison Workman, Aug 19, 1974.

Showing five boundary lines: the line claimed by N.H. Laws of 1973, Chapter 580; the same line as shown in “The Portsmouth Herald” of June 29, 1974 making the lines approx. 500 yards southerly of where it should be; the geological line claimed by Maine; the accurate geological line, and the only accurate line emanating out of Concord, N.H. Compiled by Harrison Workman on Jan. 18, 1975.

Showing four boundary lines: the line claimed by the Commissioners for New Hampshire in Hampton, NH in 1737; the line decreed by George II and his Council Aug, 5, 1740; the line claimed by Commissioners for Massachusetts (now Maine) in Hampton, NH in 1737, and Maine’s “extreme claim” of 1974. Compiled by Harrison Workman on Feb. 11, 1975.

Shows the boundary lines with Maine (102° True) and Massachusetts (107° True) and depicts a pot at the end of a raInbow in between the two lines near Georges Bank.

Portsmouth to Cape Ann. C & GS 1206. 13th Ed. Oct 1972.

Shows the boundary lines claimed by Maine and N.H. and the proposed compromise line, and also the various possible extensions beyond the three mile marginal state line of these. Also the extension of the boundary line with Massachusetts showing two possibilities.

Portsmouth to Cape Ann. C & GS 1206. 13th Ed. Oct 1972.

Shows the states’ three miles limit of the marginal sea as a series of arcs, the area between the three mile limit and the federally controlled twelve mile limit also as a series of arcs, and dotted red “IF” lines that depict where the boundaries between Maine, N.H. and Massachusetts would be if the New England states were successful in their suit against the federal govt. and agreed among themselves.

Shows Gov. Meldrim Thomson’s original claim at 90° True (which would have conflicted with Canada’s claim) and the claim at 102° T that the Laws of NH 1973 made extending out 200 miles. Compiled by Harrison Workman, Feb. 17, 1975.

Hours

Donate to the Athenaeum

The Athenæum today continues this long tradition of mutual improvement by maintaining a library of over 40,000 volumes and an archive of manuscripts, photographs, objects, and ephemera relating to local history. It also sponsors exhibitions, concerts, lectures, and other educational and cultural programs.